Search

The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience. Tony Abbott.

Reduced by whom? Who has reduced abortion to a question of the mother’s convenience? Well, according to Tony Abbott it must be women who have reduced abortion to a question of the mother’s convenience, presumably because:

Abortion is a “grave” matter and women are incapable of perceiving it as such because they are women, stupid.

Women are dumb, or at least a whole lot dumber than Tony Abbott.

Women need men like Tony Abbott to guide them on the matter of abortion because they are too wilfully unintelligent to grasp its complexities all by themselves.

Women will, willy nilly if you let them, rid themselves of unwanted foetuses because they don’t know any better and what’s more, they don’t feckin care, do they?

Women actually have no moral compass.

Women are innately frivolous and untrustworthy.

Women don’t know half as much about abortion as do men like Tony Abbott.

Women must be made to understand how serious it is to abort a foetus because they clearly just don’t.

Women are twats.

Women will murder their children unless men like Tony Abbott stop them

Men like Tony Abbott have a moral obligation to protect women from themselves.

Men like Tony Abbott have a moral obligation to protect a foetus from its mother who will kill it, just because she thinks it will inconvenience her.

Speaking of sentences Abbott as PM sounds very much like a something I wouldn’t want to be “sentenced” to!

As for his statement the word “objectively” strikes me as most contentious in all this. By any reasonably objective standard RU486 is objectively preferable to surgical termination. Whereas by NO ethical or evidentiary standard is the religiously motivated view that every zygote, blastocyst or embryo are scared in any way objectively verifiable.

He’s not only treating women as if their incompetent to make sound choices about their own bodies the clear inference is that men are co-opted into this patriarchal bullshit.

But what makes me even madder than his false pretence of objectivity is the word “reduced”. How the fuck does he dare say that women reduce the responsibility that they have for their own fertility to a matter of “convenience”! Like so many of his other political views this is a matter of ideology giving rise to wilful mischaracterisation that the lived experience of so many others completely and utterly contradicts. And yet he dogmatically regurgitates this vile stool water time and time again, against gays, refugees, environmentalists and now women.

It would seem to me that one of the primary roles of any society is to care for the least of its members. How with that in mind could we ever accept a leader so clearly disinclined to listen to any of the categories of people who make up our society’s most needful of support. The man is simply lacking in the kind of character that should be the minimum qualification for such high office. It is he not women whose failure it is to take the issue of choice seriously enough.

HG, et al, he knows full-well what he is up to. His tactics are straight from the John Howard and Tea Party dog-whistle handbooks. He seeks a coalition of the uninformed, sold on his nonsenses based on the “othering” of people outside of that part of the electorate he is massaging.
He wants critical mass in shaming “others”, to allow acceptance of life on his terms. He is the true Platonic Guardian of the sort that Popper decried as a threat to a free society.
That is, a Fascist.
He and his ilk will decide who lives and dies. As we have seen in the US this week with the Temple massacre, there is a definite culmination in this logic and not one likely to be of long term benefit to the likes of this readership.
Don’t think just because only Abbott says it and its mainly directed at right wingers to start with, that its unproblematic.
This morning I received a polite, cold reply to a recent E-mail of mine sent to my MP concerning the Parliamentary joint inquiry set up to consider dangerous (imho) proposals allowing even more surveillance and censorship of the internet.
In a healthy society such proposals would be laughed out of the room, but in an age of uncertainty, if politicians can convince enough already ignorant people they are being “got at”, it becomes easier to both foister a more authoritarian state onto society and create the very conditions that allow for yet more dumbing down and crackpot rule by fiat later, as unpalatable truths are buried by censorship and long dead furphies, prejudices and myths of the sort that Abbott and his Lyons forum confederates go on with, are reintroduced into the common wisdom, in the absence of logic, rationality, science and real world information to challenge these.

Although you do have to wonder, if Abbott’s position is correctly interpreted by Dr Wilson, what devilish crafty creatures women might be.
A man’s ceaseless shepherding work of guidance and correction is never done. “(any) Man’s Burden?”

What are they calling themselves…bwa!
Once again, straight out of the T Party manual.
Re Hypocritiphobe’s comment, it is certain the Abbott’s politics are the politics of Cameron and the US Republicans- Austerity, moralism and surveillance, paired with the decoupling of Big Business from its financial and ethical responsibilities to society.

Let’s not forget the PM-in-waiting who visited Scores strumpet house in the USA. Fear not good people, the man in question closed his eyes while women were bought for a couple of Andrew Jacksons and those looking for chemical stimulants satisfied their hunger.

It matters not whether it’s Abbott or Rudd, both have a poor track record regarding their dealings with women.

The quote from Tony Abbott which leaves me completely gobsmacked is his apparent inability to recognise that women have the right to refuse sex.

“I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak.”

“It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons ”

And does a hyphenated name automatically mean ‘conservative’ voter?
I wonder hat the Australian did as far as background checks on the ‘accuser’ and his grudges/contacts/connections to the Liberal Party?

In another world so other media org might follow that line of enquiry.Not here,in this country.

Wat too busy watching our own slapstick,Paul, where we now want an apology for an athlete who wore a badge to show solidarity to black power and human rights, and twice now two of our indigenous athletes were roundly condemned for displaying their Nations adopted form in one form or another.The last one almost threatened with expulsion and flown home.
This country has the greatest case of political/media bi-polar in the cosmos.
(Apologies to sufferers of the real bi-polar, but I refer to this unique condition as a separate incurable,unrelated disease)

Well!
From this one divines a certain lack of appreciation for the Australian intellect, character and spirit, generally speaking?
You are probably right.
The nation is in strife, the Mad Monk is calling for the greedy state schools to be curbed in favour of the poverty-stricken religious owned private ones so that the preppies don’t have to endure a too-robust and enervating competition from your tousle-headed and upstart, uncouth children of gnarly-handed toilers.
The social order has been up ended, who knows what will come of it.
Realising the depth of our peril, as a good citizen I felt beholden to add to the long list of transgressive dot points Dr Wilson had included for our perusal concerning a detailing of Abbott’s revelations as to the unending mischiefs of the fairest flower of Australian womanhood: is there no depth they’ll not plumb in their active subversion their rightful government by the wiser sex?

Which is why it’s so easy to pick the Australian of the Year.
There are plenty of useless arse*holes to cross off the list,first.
(Wouldn’t it be great to have the opposite problem?)

Sadly, as with flies to sh*t, many of the ‘never will be’s’ find themselves drawn to vegetate in Canberra troughing it up, and making our lot unbearable at times.
.
The suitable nominees in our society (Australian of the Year.) stick out like sore thumbs.
(There are not many in Canberra in the 2 majors, these days)
As for the media.
Hahahahahahahahahaaha

Maybe we should have The ‘Unable Olympics’ in Canberra.
We could wallow in gold medals.

Far too pessimistic, Hypo and Paul. I think we still stand a fighting chance of coming to sensible decisions on most issues. Being idealistic is all very well, but subject to deep disappointment and disillusion when reality becomes apparent.

What we need is the least-worst option : currently that is Labor under Gillard. The alternatives don’t bear thinking about.

You’re departing from ultra-optimistic airport and heading for uncharted territory if you reckon Labor has a snowballs chance.I have heard all that talk about the best of the worst and I simply disagree with that, and those who back either of the big camps.Simply because as I have pointed out laboriously, there is no two sides.
(Votes will be flying everywhere at the next election,and not even Anthony Green will get it near right)
And if you seriously expect everyone one to forgive labor, for completely back flipping on everything labor,you are headed for more (as a scholar once wrote) “deep disappointment and disillusion when reality becomes apparent.”

I think your familiarity with idealism is not so far adrift from mine, as you think,my friend.
Our toxic media have already written our political history for the next several years, and lets just say Gillards role is likely to be less than cameo.
And foolishly,Labor has missed the boat on choosing a new leader,because as you know full well,it is not a choice made by grass roots,good quality or common sense.
The next election is best described this way. The Labor party is just a bunch of optimists sitting around a camp fire,half cut,when some wag throws a bucket of live ammunition on for a laugh.
You will get to see what happens as a result of that at the next election DQ.
In slo-mo effect a la Quentin Tarantino.Watch them fall one by one still trying to feign surprise on their double facades.
And seriously,if we have to bear Abbott for one unholy term(it is the most it will ever be) to rid ourselves of the pox Labor has become, then goodo.
Because I, for one, do not accept for one minute that the true Australian Labor Party sits in Parliament House.
Sadly ( as hard as I squint my eyes,clench my buttocks and wish like hell) the best Labor can hope for is to still be a registered political party, post election.